Congress had yet to try Obamacare at that point, and was abl. They thought insurers were the bad guys and costs could be controlled by coming after them. And sold that to the public.

In the next year or two it will be abundantly clear to Congress and everyone else that despite limiting the profits of insurers, medical costs are continuing to outpace inflation, with drugs being the most conspicuous/easiest to demonize component.

Bump this thread in 2 years and see if there isn't a new healthcare bill (whether it's framed as repealing or amending Obamacare will depend on the winner of the election) that finally goes after the drug companies.

The major biotech ETF fell to its lows of the day after Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said Monday she would take on "price gouging" in the pharmaceutical industry.

A Sunday New York Times article told of a specialty drug that went from $13.50 to $750 per tablet overnight. Responding on Twitter to this piece, Clinton said Monday she will propose a fix to the situation on Tuesday.

The major biotech ETF fell to its lows of the day after Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said Monday she would take on "price gouging" in the pharmaceutical industry.

A Sunday New York Times article told of a specialty drug that went from $13.50 to $750 per tablet overnight. Responding on Twitter to this piece, Clinton said Monday she will propose a fix to the situation on Tuesday.

The iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB) was trading down more than 4 percent by early afternoon, taking a visible leg down around the time of the 10:56 a.m. ET tweet by the presidential candidate.

Biotech stocks are among the hottest group of stocks even as the bull market wanes. The ETF is up 27 percent over the last 12 months, compared with a 2 percent decline for the S&P 500 over the same period.

Investors in the biotech sector often feel as though they are immune from the market lows, according Bradd Kern, managing director at Armored Wolf, which is short IBB. Instead, he said, all the hot money in the sector makes it prone to sharp downward turns when confidence is shaken.

"I do think there will be more days like today," Kern said.

Shares of Retrophin, started by Martin Shkreli, traded down more than 11 percent following Clinton's tweet. Shkreli is also the founder and Turing Pharmaceuticals, which was the subject of the Times article.

Shkreli told CNBC's "Power Lunch" that he stands by the increased price of Daraprim, the specialty drug at the center of the aforementioned New York Times article.

"At this price Daraprim is still actually on the low end of what orphan drugs cost and we're certainly not the first company to raise drug prices," he said.

"We paid a very, very large amount to buy an unprofitable medicine. We can't continue to lose money on the drug at that price so we took it to a price where we can make a comfortable profit but not any kind of ridiculous profit," Shkreli added. "Turing is a very small company. It's a new company and we're not a profitable company, so for us to try and exist and maintain a profit is pretty reasonable."

"A lot of development now is moving offshore that we're at risk of losing our lead in terms of innovation in this space in the United States," he said. "If we can figure out a way to lower the cost of development and expedite the process of getting these things from the labs into the marketplace, I think that will result in better products, better services for more people, better drugs at lower costs."

@ the booga at the end of the article. "We are at risk of losing our innovation lead if we can't charge $1,000,000 per pill and remove regulations." GTFO

The whole industry is a racket that has been let off the leash for far too long.

What kind of dipshits were managing the prior owners of these drugs whose prices could be jacked up willy nilly? I.e. why didn't the prior owner crank the price? I bet their shareholders would be upset knowing they weren't getting the profits they could have.

What's a solution here? Better yet, what is the problem here? Let's define the problem first.

These drugs are often off-patent. The previous owners likely realized if they raise the price someone else will come along and undercut them, so they don't do it. This POS is counting on the fact that in the meantime he can gouge for a year or two and move on. He's like a house flipper but doing it with drug companies. He's NOT developing new drugs, he's maximizing revenue, taking the money, and moving on. And he's doing it on the backs of sick people.

I see this so often while measuring our company's Rx trend. Drugs randomly are tripling and quadrupling in price overnight. Myalept just had an annual treatment price increase from $500k to $1.3M when it was bought by a new company. Speciality cancer drugs cost 10% more every month. While I don't believe in government regulation of price, the PBMs should have some power to fight back. We are headed to a place where drug coverage will exceed medical coverage at this rate.

Front-line tuberculosis doctors in Canada were recently sticker shocked that the price of an essential medication for drug-resistant TB went through the roof for no apparent reason.

Cycloserine is a critical drug used to treat a rare and dangerous form of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

Overnight in North America, cycloserine went from $15 US per pill to $360 US.

"Everyone in the TB community in North America has been going crazy over the last week or so when they realized the price had gone up by over 2,000 per cent," said Amir Attaran, a professor of law and medicine at the University of Ottawa who specializes in drug policy.

It's part of a trend in the pharmaceutical industry of small companies buying up old, off-patent drugs and jacking up the price.

"It's people coming from hedge funds," said Attaran. 'It is people looking to make a quick buck."

The patent on cycloserine expired long ago. Elsewhere in the world, it sells for 22 cents US a pill. It is considered an essential medicine by the World Health Organization.

The drug company Lilly developed cycloserine in the 1960s. In 2007, the company gave the North American rights to sell the drug to the Chao Center, a non-profit associated with Purdue University in Indiana.

Last month, the Chao Center transferred the rights to Rodelis Therapeutics, which raised the price. On Monday following a New York Times story centred on the price increase for another infectious disease drug, the price fell of cycloserine fell to $35 US per pill.

The two organizations recently said the rights to the drug will be transferred back to the non-profit Chao Center.

The price still more than doubled for no reason. Investments in R&D, amirite?

The price will drop to a level where Turing will break even or make a "small profit," Shkreli told NBC. He previously defended the decision to raise the price by saying no patients would lose access to the drug and that Turing would put the extra cash toward research for a more effective treatment.

He said Tuesday that drugs like Daraprim cannot be sustained without companies receiving a return on their investment.